Not all fraud is committed in broad daylight

By Ravinder Singh
Listen. Malaysian unbelievers should listen. When an Oxford graduate tells you to believe that 10 is approximately equal to 1, he should know what he is talking about. He told The Economist that there isn’t a shred of evidence to show any fraud in the recently concluded GE13. This despite the fact that the vote of a voter in Kapar (an opposition supporting area) was only worth 10% of the vote of a voter in Putrajaya (a ruling party supporting area). And this in turn despite the fact that para (c) 13th Schedule of the Federal Constitution expressly states that the number of voters in the various constituencies should be “approximately equal”. The VIP is Khairy Jamaluddin.

On the same wavelength is the current Minister of Home Affairs who also strongly asserts that the Constitution was fully honoured in carrying out the election process and as such Malaysians should not question the fairness of the election.
Even the National Council of Professors has similarly defended the EC for having complied with the Constitution and conducted a fair election.

Well, that is their democratic right to do so. On the other hand it is also the democratic right of voters to question them, to reason, to analyse and to make their conclusions.

Instead of trying to force their views, opinions, etc. upon the voters, the authorities should explain honestly the points raised rather than sweeping things under the carpet. The attitude that the powers that be know best, have a right to do as they wish and no one should question them, must change.

One very important complaint about the electoral process is gerrymandering which has from election to election ensured the ruling party’s advantage over its opponents. This has been confirmed by researchers of standing and so it is not the cry of disgruntled losers.

On this one score alone, electoral fraud cannot be denied.  Yes, fraud, because any form of manipulation to give advantage to any side was not the intention of the Merdeka Constitution nor is it acceptable in any democracy worthy of its name.

Replying in the Sun newspaper of 5/1/2012 to a letter that had questioned the redelineation of constituencies, the Public Relations Officer of the Election Commission Sabri Said wrote:

“On the issue of the review of the division of the federation and the states, the EC is guided by four main principles stipulated in the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal  Constitution which are as follows:

a) while having regard to the desirability of giving all electors reasonably convenient opportunities of going to the polls, constituencies ought to be delineated so that they do not cross state boundaries and regard ought to be had on the inconveniences of state constituencies crossing the boundaries of federal constituencies.

b) regard ought to be had to the administrative facilities available within the constituencies for the establishment of the necessary registration and polling machines.

c) the number of electors within each constituency in the state ought to be  approximately equal except that having regard to the greater difficulty of reaching electors in the country districts and the other disadvantages facing rural constituencies, a measure of weightage for area ought to be given to such constituencies; and

d) regard ought to be had to the  inconvenience attendant on alterations of constituencies, and to the maintenance of the local ties.

The EC wishes to emphasise that it has faithfully and consistently relied on the rule of law in carrying out its responsibilities.”

Repeated calls to the EC to explain in what language or by what mathematical formula or theory 1 vote in Putrajaya is “approximately equal” to 10 (around 18 in 2008) in Kapar have not been responded to.

Take this scenario:  A bank advertises that for your cash investment for five years, your return will be approximately equal to Ringgit for Ringgit. You put in RM100,000 hoping to get a return of nearly the same amount. But when the time comes, the bank gives you only RM10,000 or a mere 10% return on  your investment.

The bank will say and keep repeating that the return of RM1 is approximately equal to the investment sum of RM10. Will the investor accept this as fair play by the bank, or conclude that the investment scheme was a fraud perpetrated on the investors?  Will rule of law be on the bank’s side although it has conned investors with its false advertisement?

It is a very similar kind of situation pertaining to the electoral boundaries as enshrined in the Constitution and as manipulated to give unfair advantage to the ruling party. The EC cannot give the phrase “approximately equal” any meaning it chooses. Is the EC telling Malaysians that it was the intention of Parliament, when amending the Constitution on elections, to give the EC a free hand to manipulate the electoral boundaries to ensure the ruling party stays in power, and stays with a two thirds majority?

Is it democratic for a party/coalition that has a two-thirds majority in Parliament, to make a law that would ensure it remains in power at all times?*

Not all fraud is committed in broad daylight.

*(Did not this happen in Egypt after their recent elections?)